I can see no situation where people should be denied their rights without due process.  Period, full stop.

In general I agree with you.  But, people accused of violent domestic abuse are relieved of their weapons.  And they should be because history shows they have a strong tendency to use them.

But otherwise - if a State exercised due process then you'd be ok?  A letter than says "you're being excluded from the militia because of X reason and you have two weeks to appeal this.  After that time, you may not possess these weapons.  You may turn them in at the armory to be held until your case is settled or you may sell them yourself."

Which means the whole thing won't work for super secret terrorist investigations because the FBI won't actually tell anyone that they're the target of an investigation. 

because a few people don't like the results.

Is "a few people" a data source or your opinion?

I'm opposing your idea because I view it as caving and giving up my rights over some future possibility that someone will try and take my weapons, which I don't find likely.

It's an affirmation of the 2nd Amendment.  I'm not understanding why you say caving.  It's actually more than what we have today because the idea includes an agreement by both sides that the militia gets to own military style weapons, including AR weapons.  If the left had their way, they would ban these "machine guns" because they're "dangerous".  The agreement takes banning them off the table

Do you claim that the mentally ill should have access to buy guns?  Should those who are under investigation from terrorism?  The Supreme Court just upheld the right to restrict all firearms from violent domestic abusers.  Should they also have access to guns?  How about felons?  How can you defend a principle that says "everyone gets guns means EVERYONE and must include those who we believe will kill someone with them"?

I recognize the slippery slope aspect of this.  I just think that it's not defensible. 

It is the right of the State to organize the militia, including the unorganized militia.  I presume that includes deciding who can be part of the militia and who cannot.  That part is irrelevant to hunting and self defense.  You still get hunting rifles, pistols and shotguns.  What non-militia activity do you want to do that can't be covered by one of those three?

You said that you oppose state regulation of the militia to remove guns from the mentally ill and terrorists. Ironically that is probably the one part that is most Constitutional about this.  States could do this today and there might be complaints but I am fairly sure that it would survive the courts.

It is coming.  Best to get something for it and to get it as localized as possible.

To date, no one has provided a sound rational reason for the 1994 ASW and other such attempts to eliminate scary looking guns.

Too many people are acting irresponsibly with them?  When I was growing up, we had shotgun racks in our truck and used them.  It wasn't a problem.  Nobody got shot, nobody was an idiot.  The few that were were made examples of and it worked.  Today you'd probably get in trouble for just having the shotgun rack, let alone actually carrying a shotgun in it.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that we need to up our game on prosecuting gun crime.  If you commit a violent crime with a gun, the punishment should start at 20 years and rapidly go up.

I'm still confused by labeling the "AR" as a "military style weapon", unless you purpose is to create fear and perpetuate misunderstanding.  I'm hoping people will eventually figured out how the "AR" has morphed in the civilian market.

Do you know the history of the weapon?  The AR-15 was originally made by the ARmalite company and sold to Colt either just before or at the beginning of Vietnam when Colt turned it into the M-16.  They made it THE military rifle of the Army and it now has a mil-spec.  If you want to argue chicken and egg then I think it's semantics because the reality is the weapons are military style. 

The AR branding comes from the original AR-15 and is a term similar to Kleenex; it is descriptive of a class of gun.  An AR is any rifle which roughly complies with the M-16 mil-spec.  Most AR rifles do not fully meet the military specification but it's the general class and action that defines it.  So the answer to your question is that I use the term "AR" because that is what gun sellers use because that's the generic description of the type of rifle.

Understand that I believe in gun ownership.  I am of the opinion that anyone who doesn't responsibly own at least one gun rank slightly above people who don't vote.  I am afraid that the time is coming very soon when we will be told that "for our own good", we need to turn in rifles.  Hence my proposal is a pre-emptive strike to have these weapons declared as the rifle of the militia. The compromise is to say that "dangerous" people can't have them.

I don't understand what "compromise" you expect when it comes to constitutional rights?

The constitutional right for a state not to control the militia?  Is that the one you are thinking of? 

Or is it the realistic right to free speech to complain when Dems take over the government again, appoint more radical judges and start passing all these stupid guns laws they've been talking about?  Then what are you going to do, justify their paranoia by shooting the cop that comes to disarm you?

What I proposed is that we affirm the right of the militia to be armed with ARs, then direct the states to apply a minimum of regulation to their militia with due process to remove the mentally ill and terrorists. Or do you argue that they should be armed too?

The AR-15 was the predecessor to the M-16. The term AR (from Armalite) is now a generic term like Kleenex that applies to any rifle which roughly approximates the M-16 mil-spec. Yes, an AR is slightly different.  An AR is a military style weapon which is one of the major reason it has a PR problem.  The media's hype over the very few times it has been used to shoot people is another.

Like I said, don't worry about it. The Left hates the idea too.

Can you give us the Cliff Notes version on your proposal? 

Attach ownership of AR rifles to membership in the unorganized militia, then have the states regulated the unorganized militia to exclude the mentally ill and those on terror watchlists.  Congress cannot constitutionally abridge the right of weapons ownership but the States can regulate the militia.  Other weapons, such as shotguns and hunting rifles, are unaffected.

The right freaks out even though the militia gets armed. The left freaks out even though they get the gun control that they held the preschool temper tantrum over.

Interesting. I assume CA, TX, and NY would be on top. If the idea is to allow those who pay the most to the FedGov to have a greater impact on federal spending decisions, a more effective metric might involve net federal tax revenue. A bunch of states get a big return on investment in the way of federal support.

This'd be real tough for poverty-stricken states, though.

I'm not sure basing a piece of government on money has very many positive outcomes.